Talk:Get system command output

Do we need this task when we have Execute a system command?

Do we? --Paddy3118 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

IMHO it makes more sense to add storing the output as an option/extra credit to Execute a system command. --Andreas Perstinger (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That might have been better had we thought of it when "Execute a system command" was still a draft task but it has over a hundred entries making any task update unfair to the existing entries.

That's why I've suggested to add it as an option/extra credit so that just showing how to execute a system command would still be correct :-) I've just skimmed through all the solutions there and at least 35 languages (about a third) already show how to capture the output. (I'm probably misunderstanding the word "unfair" but I don't see RC as a language bragging contest, i.e. "my language is more capable as yours". I'm pretty sure that people will gradually add solutions for the extra credit.). --Andreas Perstinger (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the choice should be "do we delete this as being too similar or not". --Paddy3118 (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think showing how to capture the output of a system command is useful. Thus an alternative would be to rename it to something like "Execute a system command/Capture output", i.e. make it a subtask. --Andreas Perstinger (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)